Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 6120524" data-attributes="member: 22424">Honestly, the encyclopedia-format book of monsters is the worst possible method of presenting them. Ideally, what's wanted is a fully-indexed and searchable database of monsters that gets updated invisibly every time a bunch of new monsters is released. And if it could include tools for advancing monsters, applying templates, and creating your own, all the better.Failing that, the monsters would be better presented on cards, provided all the information can be given on a single card. Failing that, the idea behind the 2nd Edition "Monstrous Compendium" is the way to go (but, note, the 2nd Ed MC was implemented in a truly abysmal manner).If we absolutely must have a book-format Monster Manual, then I felt the 3e version got it about right (and, actually, so did the 1st Ed one - it's just that I came to that significantly later). That is, some monsters (demons, devils, true dragons) were grouped by type, while most (humanoids, undead) were listed alphabetically. As far as I can see, the reasoning behind the distinction was based on what a person first thought of when he thought about the monster. It takes a bit of judgement, but I think those books did get it just about spot-on.</blockquote>